INDER SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition is directed against order dt.20/08/92 (Ann.5) whereby disciplinary authority has discharged the petitioner from service, which was affirmed by appellate authority vide order dt.10/01/94 (Ann.7) rejecting his appeal.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as Armed Guard in Class IV cadre and confirmed. In year 1989, he was promoted as LDC. Complaint was lodged against him that his matriculation certificate, on the basis whereof, he was promoted on the post of LDC, was forged, and consequently, FIR-RC-32/(5)(9) was registered in Office of Superintendent of Police (CBI), Jaipur and after investigation, challan was filed against him for offences punishable Under Sections 420, 465, 471 & 201, IPC and at the same time, was placed under suspension vide order dt. 05/01/91 (Ann.1). During trial, petitioner pleaded guilty before trial Court and accordingly, was convicted Under Section 420, 465, 471 & 201, IPC by learned Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Jaipur; and after taking note of his past conduct, vide judgment dt.20/02/92 (Ann.2) instead of sentencing him, was released on probation Under Section 4 & 5 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (Act, 1958) provided (1) he deposits a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards expenses incurred for prosecution and (2) he furnishes a personal bond to the satisfaction of trial Court that he would maintain piece and be of good behaviour & conduct for a period of three years.

(3.) On account of his conviction vide judgment (Ann.2), petitioner was served with notice dt.24/03/92 (Ann.3) in terms of Clause19.3 (b) of 1st Bipartite Settlement dt.19/10/1966 (bipartite settlement) as to why he should not be dismissed from service; and taking note of his reply, the respondent-authority vide order dt.20/08/92 (Ann.5) discharged the petitioner from service against which he preferred appeal (Ann.6), which too was rejected by appellate authority vide order dt.10/01/94 (Ann.7).